rsmithgi
Veteran Member
I have the 17mm F1.8. I like it quite a bit. I also have the Olympus 25mm F1.8 that I like even more. I don't have the 15mm because I already own the 14mm F2.5 and I'm not that fond of that focal length.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Decision on Prime lens!
- Thread starter EL2018
- Start date
I just got a 20mm today, ebay purchase. Bought it for my father who wanted something smaller, lighter, and brighter to supplement his 12-40 Pro. I got the 20mm for him because I already own the PL15 and PL25 and thought that the 15 is too wide and the 25 is too narrow if someone's going to have one prime. Plus I didn't want to duplicate what I have. Plus I was curious about the 20mm.
If an Oly 17mm had popped up at a good price I would have bought one of those instead. One didn't.
In favor of the 20mm--any of these could be enough to make it the winner for someone:
--versatile FL
--most compact length
--cheapest (about $100 less than the PL15 or Oly 17)
Against the 15mm:
--why so much girth? I see no technical reason it needs to be so fat for f/1.7.
--somewhat slower to focus, will matter if and when every fraction of a sec counts
--focus ring doesn't feel nearly as smooth as those on my other lenses
Overall, the 20 can take sharp photos, but looks, sounds, and feels clunky compared to my other lenses.
If an Oly 17mm had popped up at a good price I would have bought one of those instead. One didn't.
In favor of the 20mm--any of these could be enough to make it the winner for someone:
--versatile FL
--most compact length
--cheapest (about $100 less than the PL15 or Oly 17)
Against the 15mm:
--why so much girth? I see no technical reason it needs to be so fat for f/1.7.
--somewhat slower to focus, will matter if and when every fraction of a sec counts
--focus ring doesn't feel nearly as smooth as those on my other lenses
Overall, the 20 can take sharp photos, but looks, sounds, and feels clunky compared to my other lenses.
Kent Ekasak
Leading Member
- Messages
- 819
- Reaction score
- 990
Your requirement : low light holiday prime and leave 12-40/2.8 at home..
20 is perhaps the best 1 prime FL to replace 12-40, but its focus keep hunting on low light..
15 has excellent image rendering of the three IMHO,fast focus in low light, but this FL alone can not replace 12-40.. You may need another 25mm..
Given above, and if you want just 1 prime, 17 might be a most compromise choice of all 3...
20 is perhaps the best 1 prime FL to replace 12-40, but its focus keep hunting on low light..
15 has excellent image rendering of the three IMHO,fast focus in low light, but this FL alone can not replace 12-40.. You may need another 25mm..
Given above, and if you want just 1 prime, 17 might be a most compromise choice of all 3...
Holistic Photog
Leading Member
15/1.7 is the best optically and the AF is excellent.
The 20/1.7 is the second best optically but also the slowest AF. Most of the reported focus problems, however, seem to be on Olympus bodies. The 20/1.7 is also slower on Panasonic bodies than other lenses, but I don't think it has hunting problems. I don't know for sure about Olympus bodies. I don't think many people have problems with it on Panasonic bodies. The original E-M1 has a Panasonic sensor, so no banding problems with this lens.
Note that the 20/1.7 may actually be a little sharper in the center than the 15/1.7, but performance across the frame is probably better on the 15/1.7, especially stopped down.
The 17/1.8 is probably the worst optically of the three, although still very good. AF speed is excellent however.
The 15/1.7 is clearly the best all around lens. I don't have the E-M1, so I don't know how the lens performs on it, but there's nothing inherent in the lens that would cause problems with any body. The AF is as fast as it gets. I think Olympus chose not to utilize the aperture ring, however it has nothing to do with the lens itself.
Last edited:
Having gone through (and still going through) this situation, I would advise that you buy the 17mm f1.7 because you have an olympus system, and don't use/look at the other lenses.
Reason: They are all good lenses and they all take good pictures, but there are real differences between them, none of which you will care about because after using ANY of these lenses for a period of time you will be able to get your shot. Having played with all of them I like the look of the 20mm lens, and its focal length, I like the manual clutch and stops on the the 17mm, and I LOVE the overall smoothness of the handling on the 15.
I would have known NON of this if I had stuck with my 20mm I bought for cheap on ebay, as I was getting the shots I wanted. And if I had bought the 17mm or 15mm first, the same thing would have happened.
Buy the 17, don't EVER touch the others, and you will be happy.
Hi. Thanks for your reply. It's sounds like good advise . I just won an 8 month old Olympus 17mm on EBay for a good price. Hopefully I'll be happy with this, if not I can sell it on losing nothing.
Thanks for all your replies it's always helpful to speak to people who have used the lenses to ask their opinions.
Great advice.
BruceRH
Veteran Member
Good choice. I have all three and use the Olympus 17 the most. Jhunna’s advice is spot on IMO. I rarely use the 20(I really should just sell it but it is sharp) and the 15 stays on my GM5. Enjoy your new to you lens. (I also buy mostly used or refurbished so that if I don’t like a lens, I can usually sell it for around what I paid)
NZ Scott
Veteran Member
I've done a lot of travelling with the following primes:
Rokinon 7.5 fisheye, Olympus 12/2.0, Panasonic 15/1.7, Olympus 17/1.8, Olympus 25/1.8, Panasonic 25/1.4, Olympus 45/1.8 and Olympus 60/2.8 Macro.
If you're taking only one prime, I think you're correct to go wide.
Out of the lenses listed above, I would take one of the 12mm, 15mm or 17mm lenses.
These days, I usually take the 12/2.0.
The reason is that I normally use my prime in low-light conditions. Typically, this is indoors. When I'm indoors, I'm usually trying to shoot wide-angle for architecture or busy market scenes.
I also find the 12/2.0 good for shooting landscapes, as the focus clutch is handy for focusing in low light at dawn and dusk.
As for the 15/1.7 versus the 17/1.8, I think it comes down to which focal length you prefer. The 15 is a beautiful little lens, but I might sell it and keep the 17 because I prefer the focal length.
I've often travelled with the 17/1.8 as my only prime, and I love it.
Some people say the 17 isn't great optically, but mine is tack sharp (eg, the skin pores and eyelashes on the boy below are sharp even at f/1.8). The only thing I don't like about it is fringing (eg, see around the reflections in the boy's eyes).
Of course, your needs might be different.
Some travel shots with my 12/2.0 and 17/1.8:
S
--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/
Last edited:
WhiteBeard
Veteran Member
Putting each suggested lens' specific qualities aside for a moment, you should have asked yourself this : Which FL between 12 and 20 do you find using most on your 12-40? Maybe you needed a 12 mm F2 more than the 17 you bought. You can always crop a 12 mm pic to mimic a 17 mm FOV but obviously, the perspective is more natural on the 17. Anyway, have fun with your new kit!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum